<<<< Newsclip Autopsy >>>>

This site is dedicated to dissect mainstream news and to expose the half-truths, mis-truths and, most importantly, the truth left out.
1. Cut and paste a brief excerpt from an established news source.
2. Provide a link.
3. Explain the half-truth, mis-truth or information left out.
It's time to disassemble the "manufactured consent".
NOTE: IF THIS SITE IS "FOCUSED" ON AN ISSUE, PLEASE POST ONLY "FOCUS" RELATED EXCERPTS.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

TRUTH NOT TOLD: Blair Admits Guilt

I was watching a BBC video report of Prime Minister Tony Blair's press conference today because I heard that he had the audacity to make this comment today:

"September 11 for me was a wake-up call. Do you know what I think? A lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again."

No, Tony -- the world didn't turn over and go to sleep. Quite the opposite, in fact. I, for one, do not feel sleepy when I'm...well...outraged. You see, we have even noticed that the world is NOT a safer place since 2001 thanks to YOUR policy of illegally and unjustifiably invading a country which posed no immediate threat to your country -- and then having no plan to win the peace.

Alas, I digress.

The real reason for this post is to communicate to you all that Tony Blair, unreported by the corporate media, has finally admitted that the Iraq war has fueled the so-called "war on terror". That's right, folks. This war criminal has finally revealed to the world that he believes the war in Iraq is helping Al Qaeda. Don't believe me? Read Tony's words:

I'm not saying that any of these things [such as the Iraq war] don't affect their [bombers] warped logic or warped reasoning of what they do or that they don't use these things to try to recruit people. But I do say -- we shouldn't compromise with it...we shouldn't even allow them the vestige of an excuse for what they do.

Funny...those same exact words could be applied towards the U.S. and Britain's actions.

Don't you think it's high time the media call George and Tony on this admission of guilt? What the hell are they waiting for? Maybe they think the Prime Minister will actually handcuff himself at the next press conference? Who knows?!

Monday, July 18, 2005

TRUTH REVEALED: My Take on the Wolfowitz Downing Street Letter

A copy of the acutal letter has been given to Raw Story revealing a conversation that took place between the former British ambassador to the United States, Sir Christopher Meyer, and one of the architects of the Iraq war. PNAC member -- Paul Wolfowitz.

The most revealing truth about this document, to me, is the overall consistency in this letter. It can be summed up in one passage. Sir Christopher Meyer writes:

We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option.

Remember, this letter was written in Mar. 18, 2002 -- a FULL YEAR before the Iraq War began. Throughout this letter, two high-ranking officials discussed "Regime Change" without the mention of any other options. The only question that was up for debate was "how would this be done?"

The other most revealing aspect of this letter to me is Paul Wolfowitz's insistence on NOT discrediting the INC -- despite warnings from Meyer. Is this evidence that the Bush regime was cherry-picking intelligence? No. But it sure as hell looks like it. At the very least, Wolfowitz is "in denial" about some basic assumptions about when and when not to believe intelligence. Here are 3 passages which pertain to this issue:

..."The CIA stubbornly refused to recognise this. They unreasonably denigrate the INC because of their fixation with Chalabi."...

...When I mentioned that the INC was penetraded by Iraqi intelligence, Wolfowitz commented that this was probably the case with all the opposition groups: it was something we would have to live with...

...Wolfowitz brushed over my reference to the absence of Sunni in the INC: there was a big difference between Iraq and Iranian Shia. The former just wanted to be rid of Saddam..

Raw Story uses a very juicy catchphrase "wrongfoot" to pump this story. It is a curious phrase which should make one wonder (cynically) what was meant by it, however methinks the use and context in the letter is too vague to be used as THE focus for the whole letter. Here is the catchphrase in context:

I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SORs and the critical importance of the MEPP (Middle-East Peace Agreement) as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy.

Does this mean that they were scheming to deceive Hussein so that he would do something that might cause justification for an attack? Perhaps. But, maybe Meyer simply thought that just having the inspectors there would "wrongfoot" Hussein. Again, I think the more important thing (and the strongest assumption we can make) about this passage (and others in this letter) is that it seems obvious that the decision for "regime change" was a done deal a year before the illegal invasion would begin.

Friday, July 15, 2005

TRUTH NOT ASKED: The Question that's BIGGER than "Who told Rove?"

In light of important new developments in this story from Pakistani Intelligence, we should be pressing the press to ask some specific questions about the "ORANGE ALERT SCANDAL" that took place in July 2004.

A Pakistani security official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that despite failing to capture some al Qaeda suspects after Khan's arrest, the country's security agencies were chasing them and would eventually get them.

The official would not reveal the names or nationalities of the fugitives who evaded arrest.

That's right! The U.S. and Britain KNOW THE NAMES of the fugitives that escaped due to the GOP leak.

THE QUESTION THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOURNALISTS SHOULD BE ASKING RIGHT NOW:

Did any of the fugitives that escaped the 2004 round-up of an Al Qaeda cell in Pakistan take part in the London Bombing?

If this turns out to be the case -- the Rove scandal will look like a walk in the park, folks. Afterall, 50+ British citizens may have died as a result.

---------------------

UPDATE:

Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, was a guest of the Labour MP Jon Trickett in July 2004,four months after he had been identified by intelligence officials as a "criminal associate" of one of the subjects of a major counter-terrorism operationthat had resulted in several arrests.

Mohammed Sadique Khan was identified on the periphery of a major counter-terrorism operation last year and is said to have been a "criminal associate" of one man arrested on suspicion of terrorism. Yet even after that operation, Khan was allowed to teach young children and visit the Commons.

And Khan, along with the two other bombers from Leeds, was yesterday said tohave been banned from three mosques in the city, with a suggestion it was for their "radical" views.

Were there any clues buried in the individual histories of the other bombers - warning signs that should have been spotted, but weren't?

So, just to refresh our memories, here's what we know so far:

* British intelligence, according to the Scotsman.com knew that one of the London bombers, Mohammed Sadique Khan, was a "criminal associate" of one of the subjects of a major counter-terrorism operation that had resulted in several arrests -- 4 MONTHS BEFORE GETTING A GUIDED TOUR OF PARLIAMENT BY Labour MP Jon Trickett in 2004.

* Tanweer's (another London bomber) uncle, Bashir Ahmed, said from England that his nephew traveled to Lahore, [Pakistan] earlier this year to study Islam. But the officials said they believed he also made a trip in the latter half of 2004, in which he met with Osama Nazir, a Pakistani militant...[AP Report]

* Pakistani intelligence (and I assume, U.S. and Britain) KNOW THE NAMES of the fugitives that escaped in the round-up of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan due to the U.S. government leak of his name in July 2004.

Inquiring minds should be wondering if the fugitives that escaped the botched round-up in 2004 had any participatory role in the London bombings -- since we apparently know the names and nationalities of these individuals.

Inquiring minds should also be wondering why the British officials and government are saying that they knew nothing about these bombing suspects -- When in fact, British Intelligence DID know LAST YEAR that Khan was a "criminal associate" with an terrorist cell. One should also wonder why a Labour MP (4 months after knowing Khan's association with terrorists) was giving this person A TOUR OF PUBLICLY INACCESSIBLE AREAS OF PARLIAMENT!!!

Inquiring minds should now be wondering why Pakistani intelligence is already, at great speed, connecting the dots about one of the London bombers, Shahzad Tanweer, to areas of Pakistan where he may have received training and marching orders from local terrorist cells there.

Inquiring minds should now be wondering how warning signs -- such as Khan being banned from mosques due to his "radical" views -- were supposedly unknown by British athorities, when British intelligence tagged him as a "criminal associate".

The transformation was gradual, but then his relentless reading of the Quran and daily prayers became almost an obsession, his friends told The Associated Press. He became withdrawn and increasingly angry over the war in Iraq, according to those who knew him best.

The U.S.-led war was what likely drove him to blow himself up on a subway train last week, said his friends.

There may be very reasonable explanations to these questions that I've written above. I still would like to hear them though.